Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
##   (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2501

control, N = 1251

treatment, N = 1251

p-value2

age

250

51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75)

50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75)

51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75)

0.559

gender

250

0.327

f

204 (82%)

99 (79%)

105 (84%)

m

46 (18%)

26 (21%)

20 (16%)

occupation

250

0.711

day_training

6 (2.4%)

2 (1.6%)

4 (3.2%)

full_time

29 (12%)

14 (11%)

15 (12%)

homemaker

32 (13%)

15 (12%)

17 (14%)

other

4 (1.6%)

1 (0.8%)

3 (2.4%)

part_time

43 (17%)

23 (18%)

20 (16%)

retired

61 (24%)

28 (22%)

33 (26%)

self_employ

8 (3.2%)

4 (3.2%)

4 (3.2%)

shelter

4 (1.6%)

4 (3.2%)

0 (0%)

student

4 (1.6%)

2 (1.6%)

2 (1.6%)

t_and_e

4 (1.6%)

3 (2.4%)

1 (0.8%)

unemploy

55 (22%)

29 (23%)

26 (21%)

marital

250

0.776

cohabitation

2 (0.8%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.6%)

divore

27 (11%)

15 (12%)

12 (9.6%)

in_relationship

6 (2.4%)

4 (3.2%)

2 (1.6%)

married

76 (30%)

35 (28%)

41 (33%)

none

117 (47%)

59 (47%)

58 (46%)

seperation

3 (1.2%)

2 (1.6%)

1 (0.8%)

widow

19 (7.6%)

10 (8.0%)

9 (7.2%)

edu

250

0.690

bachelor

54 (22%)

24 (19%)

30 (24%)

diploma

42 (17%)

25 (20%)

17 (14%)

hd_ad

6 (2.4%)

4 (3.2%)

2 (1.6%)

none

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

postgraduate

17 (6.8%)

9 (7.2%)

8 (6.4%)

primary

22 (8.8%)

9 (7.2%)

13 (10%)

secondary_1_3

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (9.6%)

secondary_4_5

66 (26%)

31 (25%)

35 (28%)

secondary_6_7

13 (5.2%)

6 (4.8%)

7 (5.6%)

fam_income

250

10001_12000

10 (4.0%)

3 (2.4%)

7 (5.6%)

12001_14000

12 (4.8%)

4 (3.2%)

8 (6.4%)

14001_16000

12 (4.8%)

4 (3.2%)

8 (6.4%)

16001_18000

5 (2.0%)

3 (2.4%)

2 (1.6%)

18001_20000

12 (4.8%)

8 (6.4%)

4 (3.2%)

20001_above

43 (17%)

26 (21%)

17 (14%)

2001_4000

37 (15%)

18 (14%)

19 (15%)

4001_6000

31 (12%)

14 (11%)

17 (14%)

6001_8000

22 (8.8%)

13 (10%)

9 (7.2%)

8001_10000

20 (8.0%)

11 (8.8%)

9 (7.2%)

below_2000

46 (18%)

21 (17%)

25 (20%)

medication

250

224 (90%)

112 (90%)

112 (90%)

>0.999

onset_duration

250

15.12 ± 11.18 (0 - 63)

14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56)

15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63)

0.817

onset_age

250

36.05 ± 14.81 (-18 - 72)

35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72)

36.37 ± 15.66 (-18 - 68)

0.730

diagnosis_schizophrenia

250

50 (20%)

25 (20%)

25 (20%)

>0.999

diagnosis_delusional

250

13 (5.2%)

7 (5.6%)

6 (4.8%)

0.776

diagnosis_schizoaffective

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_schizoid

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_transient_psychotic

250

2 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic

250

no

250 (100%)

125 (100%)

125 (100%)

diagnosis_depression

250

138 (55%)

69 (55%)

69 (55%)

>0.999

diagnosis_bipolar

250

24 (9.6%)

10 (8.0%)

14 (11%)

0.390

diagnosis_anxiety

250

87 (35%)

46 (37%)

41 (33%)

0.507

diagnosis_phobia

250

10 (4.0%)

3 (2.4%)

7 (5.6%)

0.197

diagnosis_personality_disorders

250

3 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

3 (2.4%)

0.247

diagnosis_substance_related_addictive

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_other

250

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (9.6%)

0.323

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2501

control, N = 1251

treatment, N = 1251

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

250

3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

0.406

recovery_stage_b

250

17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24)

17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24)

17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24)

0.835

ras_confidence

250

29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45)

29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45)

30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45)

0.637

ras_willingness

250

11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15)

11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15)

11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15)

0.905

ras_goal

250

17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25)

17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)

17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)

0.413

ras_reliance

250

13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20)

13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20)

13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20)

0.614

ras_domination

250

9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15)

9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)

9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15)

0.206

symptom

250

30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70)

31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70)

30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56)

0.301

slof_work

250

22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30)

22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30)

22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30)

0.989

slof_relationship

250

24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35)

24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35)

25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35)

0.252

satisfaction

250

20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35)

19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35)

21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35)

0.136

mhc_emotional

250

10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19)

10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)

11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19)

0.459

mhc_social

250

15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30)

15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30)

15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30)

>0.999

mhc_psychological

250

21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36)

21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36)

21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36)

0.715

resilisnce

250

16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)

16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30)

16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30)

0.177

social_provision

250

13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20)

13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20)

0.032

els_value_living

250

16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25)

16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25)

17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25)

0.331

els_life_fulfill

250

12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20)

12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20)

13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20)

0.100

els

250

29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45)

29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45)

30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45)

0.154

social_connect

250

27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48)

27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48)

26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48)

0.293

shs_agency

250

14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24)

13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)

14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24)

0.110

shs_pathway

250

15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24)

15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24)

16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24)

0.057

shs

250

30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48)

29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48)

31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48)

0.070

esteem

250

12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20)

12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20)

12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20)

0.732

mlq_search

250

14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21)

14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21)

15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21)

0.105

mlq_presence

250

13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21)

13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21)

13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21)

0.396

mlq

250

28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42)

27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42)

28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42)

0.183

empower

250

19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)

18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30)

19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)

0.351

ismi_resistance

250

14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20)

14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20)

14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

0.981

ismi_discrimation

250

11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20)

11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20)

11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20)

0.823

sss_affective

250

10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18)

10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)

10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

0.629

sss_behavior

250

10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)

10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18)

10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

0.867

sss_cognitive

250

8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)

8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)

0.402

sss

250

29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54)

29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)

29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)

0.682

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.20

0.109

2.99, 3.41

group

control

treatment

-0.128

0.154

-0.431, 0.175

0.408

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.038

0.138

-0.309, 0.233

0.785

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.302

0.199

-0.088, 0.692

0.131

Pseudo R square

0.006

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.270

17.4, 18.4

group

control

treatment

-0.080

0.381

-0.827, 0.667

0.834

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.269

0.259

-0.778, 0.239

0.300

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.07

0.375

0.336, 1.80

0.005

Pseudo R square

0.013

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.7

0.504

28.7, 30.7

group

control

treatment

0.336

0.712

-1.06, 1.73

0.638

time_point

1st

2nd

0.629

0.416

-0.186, 1.44

0.132

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.25

0.601

0.072, 2.43

0.039

Pseudo R square

0.020

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.6

0.185

11.3, 12.0

group

control

treatment

0.032

0.261

-0.480, 0.544

0.903

time_point

1st

2nd

0.012

0.182

-0.345, 0.369

0.949

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.325

0.263

-0.190, 0.841

0.217

Pseudo R square

0.005

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.291

16.6, 17.8

group

control

treatment

0.344

0.412

-0.463, 1.15

0.404

time_point

1st

2nd

0.385

0.266

-0.136, 0.906

0.149

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.418

0.384

-0.334, 1.17

0.277

Pseudo R square

0.015

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.263

12.6, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.184

0.372

-0.545, 0.913

0.621

time_point

1st

2nd

0.314

0.216

-0.109, 0.738

0.148

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.324

0.313

-0.289, 0.936

0.302

Pseudo R square

0.010

ras_domination

(Intercept)

9.95

0.215

9.53, 10.4

group

control

treatment

-0.392

0.304

-0.987, 0.203

0.198

time_point

1st

2nd

0.025

0.218

-0.403, 0.452

0.910

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.808

0.315

0.191, 1.43

0.011

Pseudo R square

0.014

symptom

(Intercept)

31.5

0.876

29.8, 33.2

group

control

treatment

-1.29

1.239

-3.72, 1.14

0.299

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.42

0.689

-2.77, -0.066

0.041

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.018

0.996

-1.93, 1.97

0.985

Pseudo R square

0.009

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.1

0.408

21.3, 22.9

group

control

treatment

-0.008

0.577

-1.14, 1.12

0.989

time_point

1st

2nd

0.337

0.358

-0.366, 1.04

0.349

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.318

0.518

-0.697, 1.33

0.540

Pseudo R square

0.003

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.5

0.514

23.5, 25.5

group

control

treatment

0.840

0.727

-0.586, 2.27

0.249

time_point

1st

2nd

0.288

0.444

-0.582, 1.16

0.517

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.337

0.642

-0.921, 1.59

0.600

Pseudo R square

0.009

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.7

0.642

18.4, 20.9

group

control

treatment

1.37

0.908

-0.412, 3.15

0.133

time_point

1st

2nd

1.11

0.506

0.114, 2.10

0.030

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.013

0.732

-1.45, 1.42

0.986

Pseudo R square

0.014

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.6

0.334

9.99, 11.3

group

control

treatment

0.352

0.472

-0.574, 1.28

0.457

time_point

1st

2nd

0.304

0.270

-0.225, 0.833

0.262

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.041

0.390

-0.724, 0.806

0.916

Pseudo R square

0.004

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.1

0.542

14.1, 16.2

group

control

treatment

0.000

0.766

-1.50, 1.50

1.00

time_point

1st

2nd

0.845

0.449

-0.035, 1.72

0.061

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.192

0.649

-1.08, 1.46

0.768

Pseudo R square

0.006

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

0.628

20.3, 22.8

group

control

treatment

0.320

0.888

-1.42, 2.06

0.719

time_point

1st

2nd

1.04

0.494

0.067, 2.00

0.037

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.141

0.715

-1.54, 1.26

0.844

Pseudo R square

0.005

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.2

0.390

15.4, 16.9

group

control

treatment

0.760

0.552

-0.322, 1.84

0.170

time_point

1st

2nd

0.759

0.357

0.059, 1.46

0.035

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.495

0.516

-0.517, 1.51

0.339

Pseudo R square

0.025

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.2

0.250

12.7, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.744

0.354

0.050, 1.44

0.037

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.132

0.220

-0.563, 0.299

0.549

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.481

0.318

-0.141, 1.10

0.131

Pseudo R square

0.030

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.8

0.285

16.2, 17.3

group

control

treatment

0.392

0.403

-0.398, 1.18

0.332

time_point

1st

2nd

0.352

0.242

-0.123, 0.826

0.148

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.341

0.350

-0.344, 1.03

0.330

Pseudo R square

0.014

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.4

0.294

11.8, 13.0

group

control

treatment

0.696

0.416

-0.120, 1.51

0.096

time_point

1st

2nd

0.275

0.233

-0.181, 0.731

0.239

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.275

0.337

-0.385, 0.934

0.415

Pseudo R square

0.019

els

(Intercept)

29.2

0.539

28.1, 30.2

group

control

treatment

1.09

0.762

-0.406, 2.58

0.154

time_point

1st

2nd

0.639

0.408

-0.161, 1.44

0.119

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.605

0.590

-0.552, 1.76

0.307

Pseudo R square

0.018

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.9

0.818

26.3, 29.5

group

control

treatment

-1.22

1.157

-3.48, 1.05

0.294

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.851

0.650

-2.12, 0.424

0.192

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.49

0.940

-3.33, 0.353

0.115

Pseudo R square

0.018

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.8

0.447

13.0, 14.7

group

control

treatment

1.01

0.632

-0.231, 2.25

0.112

time_point

1st

2nd

0.358

0.349

-0.325, 1.04

0.306

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.550

0.504

-0.438, 1.54

0.277

Pseudo R square

0.019

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.3

0.363

14.6, 16.0

group

control

treatment

1.01

0.513

0.002, 2.01

0.050

time_point

1st

2nd

0.496

0.312

-0.116, 1.11

0.114

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.405

0.451

-0.479, 1.29

0.371

Pseudo R square

0.028

shs

(Intercept)

29.2

0.771

27.7, 30.7

group

control

treatment

2.02

1.090

-0.120, 4.15

0.065

time_point

1st

2nd

0.854

0.604

-0.330, 2.04

0.159

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.949

0.873

-0.763, 2.66

0.279

Pseudo R square

0.025

esteem

(Intercept)

12.8

0.140

12.5, 13.1

group

control

treatment

-0.072

0.198

-0.460, 0.316

0.717

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.205

0.169

-0.536, 0.125

0.225

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.303

0.243

-0.173, 0.779

0.214

Pseudo R square

0.003

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.4

0.311

13.8, 15.0

group

control

treatment

0.720

0.439

-0.141, 1.58

0.102

time_point

1st

2nd

0.595

0.326

-0.045, 1.23

0.070

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.628

0.471

-1.55, 0.295

0.184

Pseudo R square

0.008

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.2

0.377

12.4, 13.9

group

control

treatment

0.464

0.533

-0.581, 1.51

0.385

time_point

1st

2nd

0.577

0.348

-0.105, 1.26

0.099

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.371

0.503

-0.614, 1.36

0.461

Pseudo R square

0.013

mlq

(Intercept)

27.5

0.618

26.3, 28.7

group

control

treatment

1.18

0.874

-0.528, 2.90

0.176

time_point

1st

2nd

1.18

0.587

0.030, 2.33

0.046

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.273

0.847

-1.93, 1.39

0.748

Pseudo R square

0.011

empower

(Intercept)

18.8

0.401

18.1, 19.6

group

control

treatment

0.528

0.568

-0.584, 1.64

0.353

time_point

1st

2nd

0.682

0.340

0.015, 1.35

0.046

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.127

0.492

-0.836, 1.09

0.796

Pseudo R square

0.011

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.224

13.9, 14.8

group

control

treatment

-0.008

0.317

-0.629, 0.613

0.980

time_point

1st

2nd

0.195

0.247

-0.288, 0.679

0.429

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.544

0.356

-0.153, 1.24

0.128

Pseudo R square

0.013

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.8

0.276

11.3, 12.3

group

control

treatment

-0.088

0.390

-0.853, 0.677

0.822

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.447

0.286

-1.01, 0.114

0.120

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.519

0.413

-1.33, 0.291

0.211

Pseudo R square

0.016

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.4

0.325

9.76, 11.0

group

control

treatment

0.224

0.459

-0.676, 1.12

0.626

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.432

0.268

-0.957, 0.094

0.109

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.640

0.388

-1.40, 0.120

0.100

Pseudo R square

0.012

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.2

0.332

9.52, 10.8

group

control

treatment

-0.080

0.470

-1.00, 0.841

0.865

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.589

0.272

-1.12, -0.055

0.032

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.201

0.394

-0.972, 0.571

0.611

Pseudo R square

0.009

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.71

0.333

8.06, 9.37

group

control

treatment

0.408

0.471

-0.516, 1.33

0.387

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.394

0.270

-0.923, 0.136

0.146

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.627

0.391

-1.39, 0.139

0.110

Pseudo R square

0.011

sss

(Intercept)

29.3

0.933

27.5, 31.1

group

control

treatment

0.552

1.320

-2.03, 3.14

0.676

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.41

0.690

-2.77, -0.062

0.042

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.41

0.997

-3.36, 0.548

0.160

Pseudo R square

0.011

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.65e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(426) = 29.29, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(426) = -0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.23], t(426) = -0.27, p = 0.785; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.69], t(426) = 1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(426) = 66.34, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.67], t(426) = -0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.24], t(426) = -1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.08])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [0.34, 1.80], t(426) = 2.86, p = 0.004; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [0.11, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.68], t(426) = 58.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.73], t(426) = 0.47, p = 0.637; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.44], t(426) = 1.51, p = 0.130; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.25, 95% CI [0.07, 2.43], t(426) = 2.08, p = 0.038; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [0.01, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.76e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.26, 11.99], t(426) = 62.92, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.54], t(426) = 0.12, p = 0.903; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.37], t(426) = 0.06, p = 0.949; Std. beta = 5.72e-03, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.84], t(426) = 1.24, p = 0.216; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.61, 17.75], t(426) = 59.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15], t(426) = 0.84, p = 0.404; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.91], t(426) = 1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.17], t(426) = 1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.36])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.71e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(426) = 49.95, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.91], t(426) = 0.49, p = 0.621; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.74], t(426) = 1.45, p = 0.146; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.94], t(426) = 1.04, p = 0.301; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(426) = 46.33, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.20], t(426) = -1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.09])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.45], t(426) = 0.11, p = 0.910; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [0.19, 1.43], t(426) = 2.57, p = 0.010; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [0.08, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.78, 33.21], t(426) = 35.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.72, 1.14], t(426) = -1.04, p = 0.298; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.42, 95% CI [-2.77, -0.07], t(426) = -2.06, p = 0.040; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.29, -6.83e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.93, 1.97], t(426) = 0.02, p = 0.985; Std. beta = 1.88e-03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.28e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.86], t(426) = 54.10, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.12], t(426) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.75e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.04], t(426) = 0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.70, 1.33], t(426) = 0.61, p = 0.539; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.80e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.50, 25.51], t(426) = 47.64, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.59, 2.27], t(426) = 1.15, p = 0.248; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.16], t(426) = 0.65, p = 0.516; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.59], t(426) = 0.52, p = 0.600; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.41, 20.92], t(426) = 30.62, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.15], t(426) = 1.51, p = 0.132; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [0.11, 2.10], t(426) = 2.19, p = 0.029; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [0.02, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-1.45, 1.42], t(426) = -0.02, p = 0.986; Std. beta = -1.81e-03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.19e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.30], t(426) = 31.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.28], t(426) = 0.75, p = 0.456; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.83], t(426) = 1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.81], t(426) = 0.11, p = 0.916; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.91e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.07, 16.19], t(426) = 27.92, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -5.57e-13, 95% CI [-1.50, 1.50], t(426) = -7.27e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = -3.70e-16, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.72], t(426) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-5.85e-03, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.08, 1.46], t(426) = 0.30, p = 0.768; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.93e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.78], t(426) = 34.32, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.06], t(426) = 0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [0.07, 2.00], t(426) = 2.10, p = 0.036; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [9.73e-03, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.54, 1.26], t(426) = -0.20, p = 0.844; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.41, 16.94], t(426) = 41.44, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.84], t(426) = 1.38, p = 0.169; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [0.06, 1.46], t(426) = 2.12, p = 0.034; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.01, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.51], t(426) = 0.96, p = 0.337; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(426) = 52.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(426) = 2.10, p = 0.036; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.30], t(426) = -0.60, p = 0.548; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.11])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.10], t(426) = 1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(426) = 58.78, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.18], t(426) = 0.97, p = 0.331; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.83], t(426) = 1.45, p = 0.146; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.03], t(426) = 0.98, p = 0.329; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.98], t(426) = 42.16, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(426) = 1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.73], t(426) = 1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.93], t(426) = 0.82, p = 0.414; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.11, 30.22], t(426) = 54.13, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.58], t(426) = 1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.44], t(426) = 1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.76], t(426) = 1.02, p = 0.306; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.28, 29.48], t(426) = 34.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.48, 1.05], t(426) = -1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.12, 0.42], t(426) = -1.31, p = 0.191; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.49, 95% CI [-3.33, 0.35], t(426) = -1.58, p = 0.113; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.96, 14.72], t(426) = 30.97, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.25], t(426) = 1.60, p = 0.111; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.04], t(426) = 1.03, p = 0.304; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.54], t(426) = 1.09, p = 0.275; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.62, 16.04], t(426) = 42.25, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [2.48e-03, 2.01], t(426) = 1.96, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [6.05e-04, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.11], t(426) = 1.59, p = 0.112; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.29], t(426) = 0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.66, 30.68], t(426) = 37.85, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.12, 4.15], t(426) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.33, 2.04], t(426) = 1.41, p = 0.157; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-0.76, 2.66], t(426) = 1.09, p = 0.277; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.53, 13.07], t(426) = 91.34, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.32], t(426) = -0.36, p = 0.716; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.13], t(426) = -1.22, p = 0.223; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.08])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.78], t(426) = 1.25, p = 0.212; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.75, 14.97], t(426) = 46.22, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.58], t(426) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.23], t(426) = 1.82, p = 0.068; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.29], t(426) = -1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.08])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.89], t(426) = 34.90, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.51], t(426) = 0.87, p = 0.384; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.26], t(426) = 1.66, p = 0.097; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.36], t(426) = 0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.30, 28.72], t(426) = 44.53, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.90], t(426) = 1.36, p = 0.175; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [0.03, 2.33], t(426) = 2.01, p = 0.044; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [4.35e-03, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.93, 1.39], t(426) = -0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.06, 19.63], t(426) = 46.97, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.64], t(426) = 0.93, p = 0.352; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [0.02, 1.35], t(426) = 2.00, p = 0.045; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [3.41e-03, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.09], t(426) = 0.26, p = 0.796; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.92, 14.80], t(426) = 64.13, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.61], t(426) = -0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.20e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.24])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.68], t(426) = 0.79, p = 0.429; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.24], t(426) = 1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.33], t(426) = 42.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.68], t(426) = -0.23, p = 0.822; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.11], t(426) = -1.56, p = 0.118; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.33, 0.29], t(426) = -1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(426) = 32.03, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.12], t(426) = 0.49, p = 0.626; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.09], t(426) = -1.61, p = 0.108; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.40, 0.12], t(426) = -1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.85e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(426) = 30.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(426) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.12, -0.05], t(426) = -2.16, p = 0.031; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.30, -0.01])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.97, 0.57], t(426) = -0.51, p = 0.610; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(426) = 26.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.33], t(426) = 0.87, p = 0.387; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.14], t(426) = -1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.14], t(426) = -1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.46, 31.12], t(426) = 31.38, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.03, 3.14], t(426) = 0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.41, 95% CI [-2.77, -0.06], t(426) = -2.05, p = 0.040; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.27, -5.97e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.41, 95% CI [-3.36, 0.55], t(426) = -1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.05])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

1,381.826

1,394.031

-687.913

1,375.826

recovery_stage_a

random

6

1,384.334

1,408.744

-686.167

1,372.334

3.492

3

0.322

recovery_stage_b

null

3

2,098.613

2,110.819

-1,046.307

2,092.613

recovery_stage_b

random

6

2,094.129

2,118.540

-1,041.065

2,082.129

10.484

3

0.015

ras_confidence

null

3

2,602.769

2,614.975

-1,298.385

2,596.769

ras_confidence

random

6

2,587.337

2,611.748

-1,287.669

2,575.337

21.432

3

0.000

ras_willingness

null

3

1,772.633

1,784.838

-883.316

1,766.633

ras_willingness

random

6

1,775.057

1,799.468

-881.529

1,763.057

3.575

3

0.311

ras_goal

null

3

2,150.958

2,163.163

-1,072.479

2,144.958

ras_goal

random

6

2,145.036

2,169.447

-1,066.518

2,133.036

11.922

3

0.008

ras_reliance

null

3

2,029.403

2,041.608

-1,011.702

2,023.403

ras_reliance

random

6

2,024.773

2,049.183

-1,006.386

2,012.773

10.631

3

0.014

ras_domination

null

3

1,920.985

1,933.191

-957.493

1,914.985

ras_domination

random

6

1,913.597

1,938.007

-950.798

1,901.597

13.388

3

0.004

symptom

null

3

3,052.638

3,064.843

-1,523.319

3,046.638

symptom

random

6

3,049.599

3,074.010

-1,518.800

3,037.599

9.038

3

0.029

slof_work

null

3

2,422.330

2,434.536

-1,208.165

2,416.330

slof_work

random

6

2,424.338

2,448.748

-1,206.169

2,412.338

3.993

3

0.262

slof_relationship

null

3

2,617.471

2,629.676

-1,305.736

2,611.471

slof_relationship

random

6

2,619.280

2,643.690

-1,303.640

2,607.280

4.191

3

0.242

satisfaction

null

3

2,787.392

2,799.597

-1,390.696

2,781.392

satisfaction

random

6

2,782.167

2,806.578

-1,385.084

2,770.167

11.225

3

0.011

mhc_emotional

null

3

2,223.058

2,235.264

-1,108.529

2,217.058

mhc_emotional

random

6

2,225.663

2,250.073

-1,106.831

2,213.663

3.395

3

0.335

mhc_social

null

3

2,653.394

2,665.600

-1,323.697

2,647.394

mhc_social

random

6

2,651.139

2,675.550

-1,319.570

2,639.139

8.255

3

0.041

mhc_psychological

null

3

2,763.713

2,775.919

-1,378.857

2,757.713

mhc_psychological

random

6

2,762.374

2,786.785

-1,375.187

2,750.374

7.339

3

0.062

resilisnce

null

3

2,411.713

2,423.919

-1,202.857

2,405.713

resilisnce

random

6

2,399.125

2,423.535

-1,193.562

2,387.125

18.589

3

0.000

social_provision

null

3

2,007.036

2,019.241

-1,000.518

2,001.036

social_provision

random

6

2,002.731

2,027.141

-995.365

1,990.731

10.305

3

0.016

els_value_living

null

3

2,109.511

2,121.716

-1,051.755

2,103.511

els_value_living

random

6

2,104.253

2,128.664

-1,046.126

2,092.253

11.258

3

0.010

els_life_fulfill

null

3

2,113.540

2,125.746

-1,053.770

2,107.540

els_life_fulfill

random

6

2,109.156

2,133.567

-1,048.578

2,097.156

10.384

3

0.016

els

null

3

2,625.613

2,637.818

-1,309.807

2,619.613

els

random

6

2,617.765

2,642.176

-1,302.883

2,605.765

13.848

3

0.003

social_connect

null

3

3,003.871

3,016.076

-1,498.935

2,997.871

social_connect

random

6

2,994.065

3,018.476

-1,491.033

2,982.065

15.806

3

0.001

shs_agency

null

3

2,470.476

2,482.681

-1,232.238

2,464.476

shs_agency

random

6

2,465.378

2,489.788

-1,226.689

2,453.378

11.098

3

0.011

shs_pathway

null

3

2,326.025

2,338.230

-1,160.013

2,320.025

shs_pathway

random

6

2,316.479

2,340.889

-1,152.239

2,304.479

15.547

3

0.001

shs

null

3

2,946.928

2,959.133

-1,470.464

2,940.928

shs

random

6

2,937.932

2,962.342

-1,462.966

2,925.932

14.996

3

0.002

esteem

null

3

1,584.675

1,596.881

-789.338

1,578.675

esteem

random

6

1,588.787

1,613.197

-788.393

1,576.787

1.889

3

0.596

mlq_search

null

3

2,240.531

2,252.736

-1,117.265

2,234.531

mlq_search

random

6

2,241.814

2,266.224

-1,114.907

2,229.814

4.717

3

0.194

mlq_presence

null

3

2,376.124

2,388.329

-1,185.062

2,370.124

mlq_presence

random

6

2,371.347

2,395.758

-1,179.674

2,359.347

10.776

3

0.013

mlq

null

3

2,808.726

2,820.931

-1,401.363

2,802.726

mlq

random

6

2,806.855

2,831.266

-1,397.428

2,794.855

7.871

3

0.049

empower

null

3

2,403.310

2,415.515

-1,198.655

2,397.310

empower

random

6

2,399.152

2,423.563

-1,193.576

2,387.152

10.157

3

0.017

ismi_resistance

null

3

1,975.336

1,987.541

-984.668

1,969.336

ismi_resistance

random

6

1,972.029

1,996.439

-980.014

1,960.029

9.307

3

0.025

ismi_discrimation

null

3

2,143.014

2,155.219

-1,068.507

2,137.014

ismi_discrimation

random

6

2,135.718

2,160.128

-1,061.859

2,123.718

13.296

3

0.004

sss_affective

null

3

2,218.918

2,231.123

-1,106.459

2,212.918

sss_affective

random

6

2,208.064

2,232.474

-1,098.032

2,196.064

16.854

3

0.001

sss_behavior

null

3

2,231.728

2,243.933

-1,112.864

2,225.728

sss_behavior

random

6

2,225.406

2,249.817

-1,106.703

2,213.406

12.322

3

0.006

sss_cognitive

null

3

2,233.690

2,245.895

-1,113.845

2,227.690

sss_cognitive

random

6

2,224.536

2,248.946

-1,106.268

2,212.536

15.154

3

0.002

sss

null

3

3,097.012

3,109.217

-1,545.506

3,091.012

sss

random

6

3,084.007

3,108.417

-1,536.003

3,072.007

19.005

3

0.000

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

125

3.20 ± 1.22

125

3.07 ± 1.22

0.408

0.129

recovery_stage_a

2nd

95

3.16 ± 1.21

0.038

87

3.34 ± 1.20

-0.266

0.332

-0.175

recovery_stage_b

1st

125

17.88 ± 3.01

125

17.80 ± 3.01

0.834

0.044

recovery_stage_b

2nd

95

17.61 ± 2.87

0.147

87

18.60 ± 2.83

-0.438

0.020

-0.542

ras_confidence

1st

125

29.69 ± 5.63

125

30.02 ± 5.63

0.638

-0.115

ras_confidence

2nd

95

30.32 ± 5.26

-0.216

87

31.90 ± 5.16

-0.645

0.041

-0.544

ras_willingness

1st

125

11.62 ± 2.07

125

11.66 ± 2.07

0.903

-0.025

ras_willingness

2nd

95

11.64 ± 1.97

-0.009

87

11.99 ± 1.95

-0.262

0.220

-0.278

ras_goal

1st

125

17.18 ± 3.26

125

17.53 ± 3.26

0.404

-0.184

ras_goal

2nd

95

17.57 ± 3.08

-0.206

87

18.33 ± 3.03

-0.430

0.093

-0.408

ras_reliance

1st

125

13.14 ± 2.94

125

13.33 ± 2.94

0.621

-0.121

ras_reliance

2nd

95

13.46 ± 2.75

-0.208

87

13.97 ± 2.70

-0.421

0.209

-0.335

ras_domination

1st

125

9.95 ± 2.40

125

9.56 ± 2.40

0.198

0.254

ras_domination

2nd

95

9.98 ± 2.30

-0.016

87

10.39 ± 2.28

-0.540

0.221

-0.270

symptom

1st

125

31.50 ± 9.79

125

30.21 ± 9.79

0.299

0.267

symptom

2nd

95

30.08 ± 9.09

0.294

87

28.81 ± 8.92

0.290

0.342

0.264

slof_work

1st

125

22.06 ± 4.56

125

22.06 ± 4.56

0.989

0.003

slof_work

2nd

95

22.40 ± 4.29

-0.134

87

22.71 ± 4.22

-0.260

0.624

-0.123

slof_relationship

1st

125

24.50 ± 5.75

125

25.34 ± 5.75

0.249

-0.270

slof_relationship

2nd

95

24.79 ± 5.40

-0.093

87

25.97 ± 5.31

-0.201

0.139

-0.378

satisfaction

1st

125

19.66 ± 7.18

125

21.03 ± 7.18

0.133

-0.386

satisfaction

2nd

95

20.77 ± 6.67

-0.312

87

22.13 ± 6.54

-0.309

0.167

-0.383

mhc_emotional

1st

125

10.65 ± 3.74

125

11.00 ± 3.74

0.457

-0.186

mhc_emotional

2nd

95

10.95 ± 3.48

-0.161

87

11.35 ± 3.41

-0.183

0.442

-0.208

mhc_social

1st

125

15.13 ± 6.06

125

15.13 ± 6.06

1.000

0.000

mhc_social

2nd

95

15.97 ± 5.66

-0.269

87

16.16 ± 5.56

-0.330

0.818

-0.061

mhc_psychological

1st

125

21.55 ± 7.02

125

21.87 ± 7.02

0.719

-0.093

mhc_psychological

2nd

95

22.59 ± 6.52

-0.300

87

22.77 ± 6.39

-0.259

0.852

-0.052

resilisnce

1st

125

16.18 ± 4.36

125

16.94 ± 4.36

0.170

-0.302

resilisnce

2nd

95

16.94 ± 4.13

-0.302

87

18.19 ± 4.07

-0.499

0.040

-0.499

social_provision

1st

125

13.17 ± 2.80

125

13.91 ± 2.80

0.037

-0.482

social_provision

2nd

95

13.04 ± 2.63

0.086

87

14.26 ± 2.59

-0.226

0.002

-0.794

els_value_living

1st

125

16.76 ± 3.19

125

17.15 ± 3.19

0.332

-0.231

els_value_living

2nd

95

17.11 ± 2.99

-0.207

87

17.85 ± 2.94

-0.408

0.096

-0.432

els_life_fulfill

1st

125

12.41 ± 3.29

125

13.10 ± 3.29

0.096

-0.427

els_life_fulfill

2nd

95

12.68 ± 3.06

-0.169

87

13.65 ± 3.00

-0.337

0.031

-0.596

els

1st

125

29.17 ± 6.02

125

30.26 ± 6.02

0.154

-0.381

els

2nd

95

29.81 ± 5.57

-0.224

87

31.50 ± 5.46

-0.436

0.039

-0.593

social_connect

1st

125

27.88 ± 9.15

125

26.66 ± 9.15

0.294

0.267

social_connect

2nd

95

27.03 ± 8.51

0.187

87

24.32 ± 8.34

0.514

0.031

0.595

shs_agency

1st

125

13.84 ± 5.00

125

14.85 ± 5.00

0.112

-0.414

shs_agency

2nd

95

14.20 ± 4.64

-0.147

87

15.76 ± 4.54

-0.372

0.023

-0.639

shs_pathway

1st

125

15.33 ± 4.06

125

16.34 ± 4.06

0.050

-0.461

shs_pathway

2nd

95

15.82 ± 3.80

-0.226

87

17.24 ± 3.74

-0.411

0.012

-0.645

shs

1st

125

29.17 ± 8.62

125

31.18 ± 8.62

0.065

-0.477

shs

2nd

95

30.02 ± 8.00

-0.202

87

32.99 ± 7.84

-0.427

0.012

-0.702

esteem

1st

125

12.80 ± 1.57

125

12.73 ± 1.57

0.717

0.060

esteem

2nd

95

12.59 ± 1.54

0.170

87

12.83 ± 1.53

-0.081

0.311

-0.191

mlq_search

1st

125

14.36 ± 3.47

125

15.08 ± 3.47

0.102

-0.312

mlq_search

2nd

95

14.95 ± 3.34

-0.257

87

15.05 ± 3.32

0.014

0.852

-0.040

mlq_presence

1st

125

13.15 ± 4.21

125

13.62 ± 4.21

0.385

-0.189

mlq_presence

2nd

95

13.73 ± 3.99

-0.236

87

14.56 ± 3.93

-0.387

0.156

-0.341

mlq

1st

125

27.51 ± 6.91

125

28.70 ± 6.91

0.176

-0.286

mlq

2nd

95

28.69 ± 6.56

-0.285

87

29.60 ± 6.48

-0.220

0.347

-0.220

empower

1st

125

18.85 ± 4.49

125

19.38 ± 4.49

0.353

-0.221

empower

2nd

95

19.53 ± 4.20

-0.286

87

20.19 ± 4.13

-0.339

0.290

-0.275

ismi_resistance

1st

125

14.36 ± 2.50

125

14.35 ± 2.50

0.980

0.005

ismi_resistance

2nd

95

14.56 ± 2.43

-0.111

87

15.09 ± 2.41

-0.422

0.136

-0.306

ismi_discrimation

1st

125

11.79 ± 3.08

125

11.70 ± 3.08

0.822

0.043

ismi_discrimation

2nd

95

11.34 ± 2.96

0.221

87

10.74 ± 2.94

0.477

0.167

0.300

sss_affective

1st

125

10.40 ± 3.63

125

10.62 ± 3.63

0.626

-0.119

sss_affective

2nd

95

9.97 ± 3.39

0.230

87

9.55 ± 3.33

0.570

0.405

0.221

sss_behavior

1st

125

10.18 ± 3.71

125

10.10 ± 3.71

0.865

0.042

sss_behavior

2nd

95

9.59 ± 3.47

0.309

87

9.31 ± 3.40

0.414

0.582

0.147

sss_cognitive

1st

125

8.71 ± 3.73

125

9.12 ± 3.73

0.387

-0.216

sss_cognitive

2nd

95

8.32 ± 3.47

0.208

87

8.10 ± 3.41

0.540

0.668

0.116

sss

1st

125

29.29 ± 10.43

125

29.84 ± 10.43

0.676

-0.115

sss

2nd

95

27.87 ± 9.63

0.294

87

27.02 ± 9.42

0.586

0.546

0.177

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(390.68) = -0.83, p = 0.408, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.18)

2st

t(421.05) = 0.97, p = 0.332, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.53)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(325.14) = -0.21, p = 0.834, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)

2st

t(389.46) = 2.34, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.16 to 1.82)

ras_confidence

1st

t(302.20) = 0.47, p = 0.638, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.74)

2st

t(365.03) = 2.05, p = 0.041, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.07 to 3.11)

ras_willingness

1st

t(329.65) = 0.12, p = 0.903, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.55)

2st

t(393.13) = 1.23, p = 0.220, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.93)

ras_goal

1st

t(316.20) = 0.84, p = 0.404, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.15)

2st

t(381.19) = 1.68, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.65)

ras_reliance

1st

t(301.59) = 0.49, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.92)

2st

t(364.23) = 1.26, p = 0.209, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.30)

ras_domination

1st

t(335.33) = -1.29, p = 0.198, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.21)

2st

t(397.31) = 1.22, p = 0.221, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.08)

symptom

1st

t(296.53) = -1.04, p = 0.299, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.73 to 1.15)

2st

t(357.17) = -0.95, p = 0.342, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-3.90 to 1.36)

slof_work

1st

t(310.44) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.13)

2st

t(375.06) = 0.49, p = 0.624, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.55)

slof_relationship

1st

t(307.97) = 1.15, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)

2st

t(372.21) = 1.48, p = 0.139, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.38 to 2.74)

satisfaction

1st

t(296.76) = 1.51, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.16)

2st

t(357.50) = 1.38, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.57 to 3.28)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(299.61) = 0.75, p = 0.457, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.28)

2st

t(361.55) = 0.77, p = 0.442, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.40)

mhc_social

1st

t(302.56) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.51)

2st

t(365.50) = 0.23, p = 0.818, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.44 to 1.83)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(296.59) = 0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.07)

2st

t(357.25) = 0.19, p = 0.852, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.70 to 2.06)

resilisnce

1st

t(316.66) = 1.38, p = 0.170, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.85)

2st

t(381.65) = 2.07, p = 0.040, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.06 to 2.45)

social_provision

1st

t(310.25) = 2.10, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)

2st

t(374.84) = 3.16, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (0.46 to 1.99)

els_value_living

1st

t(305.67) = 0.97, p = 0.332, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.19)

2st

t(369.45) = 1.67, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.60)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(297.14) = 1.67, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.52)

2st

t(358.06) = 2.16, p = 0.031, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.85)

els

1st

t(292.60) = 1.43, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.59)

2st

t(351.22) = 2.07, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.08 to 3.30)

social_connect

1st

t(297.63) = -1.05, p = 0.294, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.49 to 1.06)

2st

t(358.77) = -2.17, p = 0.031, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-5.16 to -0.25)

shs_agency

1st

t(295.61) = 1.60, p = 0.112, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.25)

2st

t(355.83) = 2.29, p = 0.023, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (0.22 to 2.90)

shs_pathway

1st

t(307.46) = 1.96, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.00 to 2.02)

2st

t(371.61) = 2.52, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.31 to 2.51)

shs

1st

t(296.14) = 1.85, p = 0.065, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.13 to 4.16)

2st

t(356.61) = 2.52, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (0.65 to 5.28)

esteem

1st

t(376.64) = -0.36, p = 0.717, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.32)

2st

t(417.16) = 1.01, p = 0.311, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.68)

mlq_search

1st

t(342.42) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)

2st

t(401.93) = 0.19, p = 0.852, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.88 to 1.06)

mlq_presence

1st

t(318.08) = 0.87, p = 0.385, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.51)

2st

t(383.05) = 1.42, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.99)

mlq

1st

t(322.78) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.90)

2st

t(387.42) = 0.94, p = 0.347, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.99 to 2.81)

empower

1st

t(305.52) = 0.93, p = 0.353, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.64)

2st

t(369.25) = 1.06, p = 0.290, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.56 to 1.87)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(353.61) = -0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.61)

2st

t(408.04) = 1.49, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.24)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(339.85) = -0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.68)

2st

t(400.33) = -1.39, p = 0.167, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.47 to 0.25)

sss_affective

1st

t(302.23) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)

2st

t(365.07) = -0.83, p = 0.405, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.40 to 0.56)

sss_behavior

1st

t(301.32) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.00 to 0.84)

2st

t(363.87) = -0.55, p = 0.582, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.72)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(299.94) = 0.87, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)

2st

t(362.00) = -0.43, p = 0.668, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.22 to 0.78)

sss

1st

t(290.15) = 0.42, p = 0.676, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.15)

2st

t(347.29) = -0.60, p = 0.546, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-3.63 to 1.92)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(220.80) = 1.84, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.02 to 0.55)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(202.18) = 2.96, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.27 to 1.33)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(195.90) = 4.33, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (1.02 to 2.74)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(203.40) = 1.78, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.04 to 0.71)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(199.75) = 2.90, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.26 to 1.35)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(195.73) = 2.82, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.08)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(204.94) = 3.67, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.39 to 1.28)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(194.32) = -1.94, p = 0.107, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.82 to 0.02)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(198.17) = 1.75, p = 0.163, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.39)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(197.49) = 1.35, p = 0.358, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.54)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(194.38) = 2.07, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.05 to 2.14)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(195.18) = 1.22, p = 0.444, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.90)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(196.00) = 2.21, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.96)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(194.34) = 1.73, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.91)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(199.87) = 3.37, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.52 to 1.99)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(198.12) = 1.52, p = 0.258, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.10 to 0.80)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(196.86) = 2.74, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.19)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(194.49) = 2.26, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.03)

els

1st vs 2st

t(193.22) = 2.92, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.40 to 2.09)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(194.63) = -3.45, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-3.68 to -1.00)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(194.07) = 2.49, p = 0.027, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.63)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(197.35) = 2.76, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.26 to 1.54)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(194.21) = 2.86, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.56 to 3.05)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(216.48) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.44)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(206.87) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.64)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(200.26) = 2.61, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.66)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(201.54) = 1.48, p = 0.279, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.30 to 2.11)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(196.81) = 2.28, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.51)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(209.94) = 2.88, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.25)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(206.17) = -3.24, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-1.55 to -0.38)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(195.91) = -3.82, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.62 to -0.52)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(195.65) = -2.77, p = 0.012, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.35 to -0.23)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(195.27) = -3.62, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-1.58 to -0.46)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(192.53) = -3.91, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-4.24 to -1.40)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(211.16) = -0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.31 to 0.23)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(196.88) = -1.04, p = 0.601, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.24)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(192.10) = 1.51, p = 0.264, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.45)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(197.81) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.37)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(195.03) = 1.45, p = 0.298, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.14 to 0.91)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(191.97) = 1.45, p = 0.296, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.11 to 0.74)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(198.99) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.46)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(190.90) = -2.05, p = 0.082, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.78 to -0.06)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(193.83) = 0.94, p = 0.698, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.04)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(193.31) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.16)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(190.95) = 2.18, p = 0.060, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.11 to 2.11)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(191.55) = 1.13, p = 0.523, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.84)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(192.18) = 1.88, p = 0.123, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.73)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(190.91) = 2.09, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.06 to 2.01)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(195.12) = 2.12, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.46)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(193.79) = -0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.30)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(192.83) = 1.45, p = 0.296, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.13 to 0.83)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(191.03) = 1.18, p = 0.479, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.73)

els

1st vs 2st

t(190.06) = 1.57, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.45)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(191.13) = -1.31, p = 0.385, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-2.13 to 0.43)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(190.71) = 1.03, p = 0.612, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.05)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(193.20) = 1.59, p = 0.228, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.11)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(190.82) = 1.41, p = 0.318, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.34 to 2.05)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(207.82) = -1.22, p = 0.450, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.54 to 0.13)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(200.46) = 1.82, p = 0.140, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.24)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(195.42) = 1.66, p = 0.198, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.26)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(196.39) = 2.01, p = 0.092, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (0.02 to 2.34)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(192.80) = 2.00, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.35)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(202.80) = 0.79, p = 0.860, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.68)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(199.92) = -1.56, p = 0.240, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.12)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(192.11) = -1.61, p = 0.219, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-0.96 to 0.10)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(191.92) = -2.16, p = 0.064, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.13 to -0.05)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(191.62) = -1.46, p = 0.293, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-0.93 to 0.14)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(189.54) = -2.05, p = 0.084, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.77 to -0.05)

Plot

Clinical significance